Our Resource Management Act can and should work better when it comes to involving iwi in the planning and consent process. As a House we should be proactive in creating good legislation that strengthens the constructive relationship between M?ori and consent authorities. I would like to take this call firstly to congratulate my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta on putting forward a bill that does just that, and, secondly—despite the speech we have just heard from Mr Auchinvole—to encourage all parties in the House to support the legislation.

Currently the law provides that those exercising power are required to have regard for kaitiakitanga, which has been translated as guardianship over our natural environment, and for the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Consent authorities are therefore required to consult iwi and to give consideration to any relevant documents prepared by them. However, the way things are currently structured, iwi input may be poorly integrated into the plans of local authorities.

M?ori have no real way, as of right, to participate in planning, except to object through the consents process, causing delays and resulting in a few positive outcomes while at the same time being potentially divisive because of the adversarial nature of the objections process. Partnership and good faith, which are both Treaty principles that suggest working together, are not fulfilled by this process. Instead, we take an unconstructive and adversarial approach to these matters. It is not the right way to do things.

Nanaia Mahuta’s bill seeks to remedy this by ensuring that more weight will be given to iwi concerns early in the planning and consenting process. It encourages a greater level of engagement between iwi, authorities, and resource management stakeholders. This would shift iwi to a position of front-end participation, providing better outcomes for all involved and having more public support than has been garnered in previous situations, because of the front-end rather than post hoc nature of the input that the bill would provide for.

As Nanaia Mahuta said, the bill also seeks to normalise a way of doing things, as opposed to the current situation where those involved often have to wait for a Treaty settlement to have the way in which they want things to be done formalised. A recent example is where provision has been made for statutory recognition of the vision and strategy in the Waikato River settlement legislation.

I am sorry to disagree with the learned view being shouted across the House by Sandra Goudie, but that legislation looks to create an integrated management approach to cleaning up the Waikato River, and developing a goal common to iwi, local government, landowners, Government agencies, industry, and the wider community—and no shouted voice from the 1960s across the House can negate that.

It is a strongly held belief in the Labour Party that things get done better, faster, and to the benefit of everyone when people work with, rather than against, each other. This bill would extend that value to an area of the law where it is sadly lacking at the moment. I listened carefully to Chris Auchinvole’s speech setting out the reasons why the National Party will not be supporting this legislation. Basically, he told us not to worry, because these matters would be dealt with in phase two of the review of the Resource Management Act. Well, we will see; maybe they will, and maybe they will not.

Why not vote to send this legislation to the Local Government and Environment Committee? That is what I say to National members—and I see that the Minister for the Environment as well as the chair of the select committee are present in the House tonight. When submissions are heard on the second phase of the Resource Management Act reforms, submissions could be heard on this legislation too, and the House will perhaps gain some assurance that the matters referred to in Nanaia Mahuta’s bill are being dealt with in an adequate way. I commend that course of action and I commend Nanaia Mahuta’s bill to the House.